How do libertarians explain imperialism?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Skooma Addict]

I would try to give a good reply, but I am burned out from too much debating on too many forums. But what exactly is it that libertarians are supposed to explain here? The effects of imperialism?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Libertarians blame everything on the state, so they see imperialism as a direct effect of big government.

Of course this only really accounts for armed military involvement and intervention in foreign countries, and not multinational corporate influence or globalization.

[RGacky3]

I think libertarians would argue it as being "investment" and not "imperialism", dont' ask me to defend it, because its rediculous.

[ComradeOm]

Its interesting to note that 19th C imperialism was a pretty expensive process and very few colonies were actually profitable. Yet many Western capitalists made vast fortunes from these enterprises. The reason for this apparent contradiction is that it was the state (so disdained by libertarians) that shouldered most of the burden of imperialist enterprises. Armies and administrators were deployed (again, at huge cost) in order to ensure that European capitalists could extract profits from the colonies at minimum individual cost

So in this regard at least the libertarians are correct - the business of imperialism was far, far beyond the means of any individual capitalist. Unfortunately that's as far as their logic carries them

[Muzk]

Not all libertarians are liberals, this kind of confused me. Please use liberals instead of libertarians. Thanks

A libertarian communist

[Conquer or Die]

They don't. It's a point of reconciliation between fascists, objectivists, austrians, and other assorted patriotic capitalists.

[IcarusAngel]

Mises claimed states were to blame without delving into the interests of the state.

Most Libertarians have no understanding of imperialism esp. the type of capitalism hegemony that has existed all over the third world. There is no "Libertarian Chomsky," or "Libertarian Zinn," if you will. They don't believe in studying the issues of poverty etc. in the third world and the first world effects on them because it obviously paints capitalism in a very negative light.

Even though they decry war, their inability to attack capitalist aggression shows they're not serious about ending 'coercion.'

[Guerrilla22]

They claim the term "imperialism" is nothing more than leftist rhetoric.

[Green Dragon]

They claim the term "imperialism" is nothing more than leftist rhetoric.

Yep, this would be true.

[Green Dragon]

No. The causes of imperialism. The "effects" are facts that don't need explanation.


You mean why did the Romans invade Gaul, or the Aztecs march throughout modern day Mexico?

[Tungsten]

Definition: The epoch of imperialism opens when the expansion of colonialism has covered the globe and no new colonies can be acquired by the great powers except by taking them from each other, and the concentration of capital has grown to a point where finance capital becomes dominant over industrial capital.
How do the resident OI libertarians explain this?
Imperialism is an attempt by one group to take another groups resources or to subjugate the other groups religion/ideology to their own, usually involving the invasion of territory. This has been going on for thousands of years, long into pre-history.

The link you posted is just anachronistic nonsense. Imperialism is not even limited to humans; even wild animals fight over resources and territory. I supposed they've reached the "highest stage of capitalism" too, have they? Ridiculous.


But we are in the 21st century, if you noticed, and if you could start explaining the British and American empires, we'd be much obliged.
What's to be explained? There's little difference besides the technology involved.

[Conquer or Die]

Imperialism is an attempt by one group to take another groups resources or to subjugate the other groups religion/ideology to their own, usually involving the invasion of territory. This has been going on for thousands of years, long into pre-history.

The link you posted is just anachronistic nonsense. Imperialism is not even limited to humans; even wild animals fight over resources and territory. I supposed they've reached the "highest stage of capitalism" too, have they? Ridiculous.


What's to be explained? There's little difference besides the technology involved.

Exactly, so libertarians and nationalists who ***** about redistribution of wealth really don't have a leg to stand on.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

They claim the term "imperialism" is nothing more than leftist rhetoric.

Not quite. I don't know a single libertarian that denies the existence of imperialism. Like I said, they blame it on the state like any libertarian would.

(And for those confused, by libertarian we mean RIGHT libertarian as in the U.S. that is what paleocons/small government capitalists are usually referred to as.)

[Drace]

Imperialism is an attempt by one group to take another groups resources or to subjugate the other groups religion/ideology to their own, usually involving the invasion of territory. This has been going on for thousands of years, long into pre-history.

The link you posted is just anachronistic nonsense. Imperialism is not even limited to humans; even wild animals fight over resources and territory. I supposed they've reached the "highest stage of capitalism" too, have they? Ridiculous.


What's to be explained? There's little difference besides the technology involved.

If it has been going on for a long time, it does not justify it. It has been the powerful nations which have been made imperialistic acts.

The mechanism has just changed a little along with the power structure. But imperialism and its effects still exist, there just being done in different ways compared to the past, due to the different economic and political systems.

So, while it is not limited to capitalism, it is related in other systems of the past as they have all had exploitative systems, in the way that hierarchy has always consisted of few elites on top. These elites, who have their economic interests, are the cause of imperialism.
This small group of individuals who own the means of production, and have much economic wealth and power(whom we call the bourgeoisie) come to existence in the highest stage of capitalism. It is the reason why imperialist acts are not committed in under-developed countries.

There is no relevance between animals and humans in this matter. Is your argument that imperialism exists in nature and cannot be changed?
Else, so what if animals fight for territory?

[Tungsten]

Exactly, so libertarians and nationalists who ***** about redistribution of wealth really don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm not even going to ask what bizzare line of reasoning bought you to that conclusion.

---------------


We all know that. Do you know why this happens?
The Imperialism fairy makes it happen.

Why should it happen today? Why isn't there a Zimbabwean empire instead of an American empire?
Because Zimbabwe is an impoverished dump. Americal is a less-impoverished dump. The difference is mainly from lack of ability (don't you think Bob would invade other countries if he thought he could?)

Basically, what you're saying is apart from being an apologetic for imperialism,
I'm not being apologetic. I'm telling you what it is, as you asked. Nothing I said defended imperialism.

you really cannot explain why imperialism exists.
I've already explained why it exists - one groups desires the property, resources, land or people of another groups. If they're sucessful, they will have greater resources available to do it again.

Perhaps it would be better to ask: What answer are you looking for?

---------------


If it has been going on for a long time, it does not justify it.
Never said it did.

It has been the powerful nations which have been made imperialistic acts.
The size or power doesn't matter. The principle is the same.

So, while it is not limited to capitalism, it is related in other systems of the past as they have all had exploitative systems, in the way that hierarchy has always consisted of few elites on top.
Rather like saying that all imperialists ate food and slept at night; this is hardly relevent. Almost all systems throughout history have had elites on top and were exploitative to varying extents - and most of these didn't become imperial powers as you've described.

These elites, who have their economic interests, are the cause of imperialism.
This small group of individuals who own the means of production, and have much economic wealth and power(whom we call the bourgeoisie) come to existence in the highest stage of capitalism. It is the reason why imperialist acts are not committed in under-developed countries.
I don't buy this. The increase in wealth that the free market brings could certainly be exploited by the state (taxation) to raise considerable revenue for any possible military adventurism, but industrialisation has played a part, too. You get very few sucessful non-industrialised imperial powers after the 18th century, as there's no way a non-industrial nation could compete in a war. I suspect the absence of a Zimbabwean empire is down to lack of ability rather than a lack of will.

If this is an argument again capitalism, then it's argument against industrialisation too for the same reason.

At the end of the day - the desire to steal other invade, which is a violation of the non-agression principle, is the primary cause.

[Drace]

At the end of the day - the desire to steal other invade, which is a violation of the non-agression principle, is the primary cause.

And the desire comes from the powerful bourgeoisie who view it as a way to expand their wealth?

[Tungsten]

And the desire comes from the powerful bourgeoisie who view it as a way to expand their wealth?

Why specifically the borgeoise or the powerful? A lowly mugger operates with the same goal. As do many of the revolutionaries here.

---------


So Zimbabwe is not capitalist enough to be imperialist. That is what the OP said.
That's not what I said. Zimbabwe is not capitalist at all. Nor is it industrial.

Also you think a particular leader (in this case "Bob" Mugabe) is or would be responsible for invading other countries? On a similar note, was Bush solely responsible for invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

Mugabe is a dictator. As tempting as it was to say it, Bush wasn't. People who don't do as he says have the tendency to get shot.

How do you explain the existence of imperialism alongside capitalism and the wholehearted participation of capitalists in imperialism (cf, Blackwater, Halliburton, British East India Company) then? I thought capitalism means following the non-aggression principle?
I don't recall any countries advocating that.

[Drace]

Why specifically the borgeoise or the powerful? A lowly mugger operates with the same goal. As do many of the revolutionaries here.Because the bourgeoisie are the ones in power and have the ability to invade other countries? And they are the ones who would benefit from war and exploitation.

And do explain please, I don't know any poor people or even revolutionaries here that's looking to invade other countries for their personal benefit.

[Demogorgon]

That's not what I said. Zimbabwe is not capitalist at all.
Which features of capitalism do you think it lacks exactly?

[Tungsten]

Because the bourgeoisie are the ones in power and have the ability to invade other countries? And they are the ones who would benefit from war and exploitation.
It makes no difference who is in power - the bourgoise don't invade countries all by themselves and they weren't the only ones who believes that they were going to benefit from it.

And do explain please, I don't know any poor people or even revolutionaries here that's looking to invade other countries for their personal benefit.
So imperialism is only an unspeakeable evil if done to people in other countries. Presumably, siezing control of other people's property and resources within your own country if quite alright. Can you say special pleading?

It's bascially the same thing.

Advocating what? The non-aggression principle? As far as I have seen, only libertarians apologize for the existing order of things, aka capitalism,
Love over-simplifying, don't we? It's almost religious thinking. We don't live in anything resembling a libertarian society. The system in most western societies is a varying mixture of socialism and free market politics. It's more like corporatism than anything else.

claiming it is the only system that respects this so-called principle.
No, those are you words, not mine; those are the words of someone who thinks we're living in some form of pure capitalism, which is absolute nonsense.

In reality, capitalists and their states do not give a hoot for such "principles"
They're not libertarians then are they?

and act quite brazenly based on their own economic interests and invade other countries to increase their own wealth.
No different to you then, are they? The only difference seems to be the target.

There is not a single imperialist country in today's world that lacks a rich and powerful capitalist class.
Did you bother to read anything I wrote in this thread?

Numerous non sequitus/oversimplifications/false assertions later:

Because his class interests lay in expanding the market to other impoverished and third world countries so that the American capitalist class can make more profits.
You mean Afghanistan and Iraq.

The invasion of Afghanistan was for the purpose of getting rid of the Taliban in revenge for 9/11, not to expand anything. Failing to act would have been political suicide on his part.
The invasion of Iraq was supposedly for the similar reasons, although there are those who claim it was to secure the oil supply, which is probably closer to the truth. I don't know why - there were no WMD in Iraq and it was pretty secure already. Apparently "god told him to do it", so real reason is anyone's guess.

I don't seem to recall any libertarians clamouring for the invasion of Iraq.
The neocons were, but then they're statist big-government types, which as far as I'm concerned puts them on your side of the playing field; the differences between the US army overrunning an Iraqi oilfield and communists overrunning the means of production - or even a socialist raising taxes - are minescule.

It wouldn't have been so bad if you'd offered an alternative solution to this problem. I suspect the answer will either involve the government - which in itself is little more than a giant corporation and therefore won't solve the problem - or some forceable removal of the profit motive, which will remove the problem to some extent as the country will subsequently be too impoverished to afford any military venture.


Which features of capitalism do you think it lacks exactly?
Pretty much all of them. Individual rights? No. NAG? Definitiely not.

[Demogorgon]

Pretty much all of them. Individual rights? No. NAG? Definitiely not.
No, I meant the features of capitalism you find in the real world. Property, wage labour, stock exchanges, private business and so on. Which do you think it lacks?

[Tungsten]

No, I meant the features of capitalism you find in the real world.
You meant the features of capitalism you find in the socialist straw man that no one actually supports.

You're as bad as he is.

[gorillafuck]

What did the taliban have to do with 9/11? Nothing. Unless you have forgotten, it was al Qaeda who carried out the attack. The fact is he did fail to act. He acted in a completely bogus way and went into Afghanistan.
The Taliban provided a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda (not to apologize for the invasion of Afghanistan)

[Tungsten]

Do you know what socialism entails? It involves a workers' state, like what they had in the USSR.
What a shame; the USSR was an imperial power too. It was also a place that experienced mass starvation due to a mixture of ideology-based pseudo-science and forcing people into collectively owned farms. Also, people with the wrong opinion were either shot or ended up in a forced labour camp. Is this the sort of place you want to live in?

If so, you've earned the "totalitarian dunce" nickname.

The current capitalists' state cannot be called socialism, unless you're referring to socialism for the rich, like th government bailouts of failing corporations.
And the welfare state, which you all welcomed, as well as the "public option" (which is going to be bureacrat-run and non-optional), which one of you recently told us to "suck down." You have a selective memory. But yes, corporate bailouts are a form of it too.


Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggis).Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

Yeah. This is not "true" capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). That so-called "true" capitalism only exists inside libertarians' heads. So let us not get into such idealistic crap.

lib·er·tar·i·an n.

One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.
Does the current system maximise individual rights or even attempt to? No, it openly violates them. Is the current system minimizing the role of the state? No, it's getting ever larger and more intrusive.

Realistically speaking, this is the only capitalism that humanity has known and will know for the foreseeable future. All the libertarians' rhetoric amounts to stifling opposition to capitalism and justifying the current system to various degrees.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a major uproar from socialists a few months ago involving a tory MP saying the NHS ought to be dismantled?

Do you support this kind of institution? If so, are you not therefore justifying the current system by doing so?

What did the taliban have to do with 9/11? Nothing. Unless you have forgotten, it was al Qaeda who carried out the attack.
See "Bucket of Cow's" quote. What was the goal then, if not revenge?

The fact is he did fail to act. He acted in a completely bogus way and went into Afghanistan.
Starting a war without end doesn't fit my description of "failing to act."

Oh yeah (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010344)?
You find one libertarian who advocated the war so they all must have done. Two can play at that game. (http://www.newstatesman.com/200303030015)

On the contrary, libertarians are only against raising taxes for the rich.
We're against taxes full stop.

As far as seizing the means of production is concerned, again, you're quite unaware of the scales you're talking about.
So the problem is merely one of scale? This is a joke isn't it?

Communists talk about seizing the means of production and nationalizing them so that everyone has an equal ownership,
Why should everyone have equal ownership? Everyone didn't create a particular means of production.

while imperialists talk about robbing other countries, privatizing other countries' wealth and looting them for the sake of their own "sacred" profit motive.
So stealing something and then giving it to other people = good. Stealing something and keeping it yourself = bad. Shall I call you Robin Hood from now on?

[Drace]

It makes no difference who is in power - the bourgoise don't invade countries all by themselves and they weren't the only ones who believes that they were going to benefit from it.

What? Of course it does. It is the ruling class that has the ability to rule their country into going into war and intervening in other countries.
Who else benefits from these wars? The current war in the Middle East for example is now widely opposed by the middle, and its still being fought by the ruling class.

The point here is that it is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to expand their wealth; and they have the power to do so. They are the causes of imperialistic acts.
You dont hear homeless people preaching about invading another country so we can establish sweatshops and use massive cheap labor.

As long as this ruling class exists, there would be continuous acts of imperialism.


So imperialism is only an unspeakeable evil if done to people in other countries. Presumably, siezing control of other people's property and resources within your own country if quite alright. Can you say special pleading?

It's bascially the same thing.

Its basically the same thing in the way that a dog and a cat both have fur.

The consequences of invading other countries and installing dictatorships there is a lot different from the socialist perspective of seizing control of property so it can be owned commonly by the workers. Even if you disagree with this "distribution of wealth" its still completely different things.

Imperialism in its definition attributes the invasion of another country. I don't see how you can call the act of seizing property as imperialist.
Even if you disagree with it, its a completely different "evil" and you cant use the same term for both things.

Your just throwing bullshit desperate attempts now.
You still haven't even attempted to explain why imperialism exists. "oh no you revolutionaries are imperialists yourselves!"

[Skooma Addict]

What? Of course it does. It is the ruling class that has the ability to rule their country into going into war and intervening in other countries.
Who else benefits from these wars? The current war in the Middle East for example is now widely opposed by the middle, and its still being fought by the ruling class.

The point here is that it is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to expand their wealth; and they have the power to do so. They are the causes of imperialistic acts.
You dont hear homeless people preaching about invading another country so we can establish sweatshops and use massive cheap labor.

As long as this ruling class exists, there would be continuous acts of imperialism.


We need to be sure that we make a distinction between the bourgeoisie and the ruling class. Also, there are plenty of poor and middle class people who were or are in favor of the Iraq war.

The bourgeoisie is not one group of people with common interests. It is not like imperialism helps "the rich" and hurts "the poor." Some poor and rich people benefit from imperialism, and other poor and rich people are hurt by imperialism.


Its basically the same thing in the way that a dog and a cat both have fur.

The consequences of invading other countries and installing dictatorships there is a lot different from the socialist perspective of seizing control of property so it can be owned commonly by the workers. Even if you disagree with this "distribution of wealth" its still completely different things.

Imperialism in its definition attributes the invasion of another country. I don't see how you can call the act of seizing property as imperialist.
Even if you disagree with it, its a completely different "evil" and you cant use the same term for both things.

You and the imperialists both want to steal resources and redistribute them as you see fit.



You still haven't even attempted to explain why imperialism exists. "oh no you revolutionaries are imperialists yourselves!"

It is a strange question because imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism, libertarianism, or free markets. It is not like the existence of imperialism is an argument against capitalism. If anything it is an argument against people who support a large and powerful government.

[Klaatu]

"...In reality, capitalists and their states do not give a hoot for such "principles" and act quite brazenly based on their own economic interests and invade other countries to increase their own wealth.

There is not a single imperialist country in today's world that lacks a rich and powerful capitalist class. Capitalism today cannot survive without being imperialist. Even you conceded Bush was not a dictator, yet he led the invasions. Why? Because his class interests lay in expanding the market to other impoverished and third world countries so that the American capitalist class can make more profits."


This is exactly true.
Now a question: since it is true that some animals "fight for territory," and humans have basic animal instincts, it seems that invasion of other countries and their wealth is not going to go away anytime soon?


"Exactly, so libertarians and nationalists who ***** about redistribution of wealth really don't have a leg to stand on."


This is also true. For example, American conservatives and libertarians ***** about the redistrubition of wealth (Glenn Beck even calls it "rape" of the rich.) So it seems astoundingly hypocritical at best, that these same people advocated the invasion of Iraq, the primary purpose of which was to plunder the oil fields for imperialist gain. That is, we never hear them complain of the "upwards" redistribution of wealth, which is what imperialism is all about.

[Drace]

We need to be sure that we make a distinction between the bourgeoisie and the ruling class. Also, there are plenty of poor and middle class people who were or are in favor of the Iraq war.

You mean the bourgeoisie has no power to influence public opinion, bribe politicians(which some are bourgeoisie themselves) and to fund wars?

And the middle class whose in favor of it has been told its for "spreading democracy and to find the weapons of mass destruction" :rolleyes:



The bourgeoisie is not one group of people with common interests.

There all rich and they seek to be richer.


It is not like imperialism helps "the rich" and hurts "the poor." Some poor and rich people benefit from imperialism, and other poor and rich people are hurt by imperialism.


Hahahaha. The rich start the wars, the poor fight them.
Please tell me how the poor benefit from imperialism? I suppose when you are part of the powerful country, you some what benefit from the income gain of the country. But the damage is a lot greater.



You and the imperialists both want to steal resources and redistribute them as you see fit.


This is quite different.
Imperialists do it for their personal benefit.

Our reason is to give workers the control of the means of production. Were fighting to benefit all.




It is a strange question because imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism, libertarianism, or free markets. It is not like the existence of imperialism is an argument against capitalism. If anything it is an argument against people who support a large and powerful government.

Capitalism allows the powerful to expand their wealth through imperialism.

[Skooma Addict]

You mean the bourgeoisie has no power to influence public opinion, bribe politicians(which some are bourgeoisie themselves) and to fund wars?

And the middle class whose in favor of it has been told its for "spreading democracy and to find the weapons of mass destruction" :rolleyes:

Well yea, some rich people bribe politicians and ask for benefits. But the middle class and the poor have influence also, although per person not as much as the rich. Still, the middle class especially is a very powerful group of people. But the point is that "rich people" are not the ruling class.


There all rich and they seek to be richer.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that over 95% of the population wants to be richer. I was trying to point out that what benefits one rich person may hurt another rich person. They are not all allied in an attempt to exploit the poor.


Hahahaha. The rich start the wars, the poor fight them.
Please tell me how the poor benefit from imperialism? I suppose when you are part of the powerful country, you some what benefit from the income gain of the country. But the damage is a lot greater.

You are grouping "the rich" into one category again, and it makes no sense. To say that "the rich" start wars and "the poor" fight them is a little dishonest. Who benefits from imperialism depends on what is done with the conquered countries economy. Many people from all the income groups will benefit and suffer.


This is quite different.
Imperialists do it for their personal benefit.

Our reason is to give workers the control of the means of production. Were fighting to benefit all.

Some imperialists think imperialism is beneficial for everyone, and many socialists support socialism for their own personal benefit or because they are envious of the rich.


Capitalism allows the powerful to expand their wealth through imperialism.

Since not all imperialist countries were capitalist, then there are obviously other causes. A monopolized army that can externalize costs is a more important factor.

[Die Rote Fahne]

A better question would be, how would a Libertarian feel if corporations hired private militaries to be imperialistic?

[Klaatu]

"A better question would be, how would a Libertarian feel if corporations hired private militaries to be imperialistic?"


Libertarians would have no problem with that. In fact, they wish to privatize everything under the sun, under the guise of "efficiency"
and/or "freedom."

What sort of "freedom" is that?

Lest we forget that the so-called "free market" brings unsafe products designed to break, environmental pollution, profiteering bankers, insurers, and lawyers, spammers, prostitution, pornography, dope, and even organized crime are all part of this over-bearing, over-rated "private sector."

On the other hand, the "public sector" employs the nation's finest: our police, firefighters, social workers, teachers, and others, as well as
all of the necessary regulators needed in order to keep the aforesaid devious, scheming capitalists in line.

[Havet]

Lest we forget that the so-called "free market" brings unsafe products designed to break, environmental pollution, profiteering bankers, insurers, and lawyers, spammers, prostitution, pornography, dope, and even organized crime are all part of this over-bearing, over-rated "private sector."

On the other hand, the "public sector" employs the nation's finest: our police, firefighters, social workers, teachers, and others, as well as
all of the necessary regulators needed in order to keep the aforesaid devious, scheming capitalists in line.

What's wrong with pornography and dope?

[Tungsten]

The point here is that it is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to expand their wealth; and they have the power to do so. They are the causes of imperialistic acts.
Why, whose interest involves not expanding their own personal wealth? Taking that argument to its logical conclusion means that imperialism is pretty much inevitable under any system.

You dont hear homeless people preaching about invading another country so we can establish sweatshops and use massive cheap labor.
I don't hear them preaching anything.

Imperialism in its definition attributes the invasion of another country. I don't see how you can call the act of seizing property as imperialist.
Invading another country doesn't involve siezing property? What?

Our reason is to give workers the control of the means of production. Were fighting to benefit all.
You're fighting to benefit yourselves. The people whose property you're seizing won't be benefitting.

---------


So it seems astoundingly hypocritical at best, that these same people advocated the invasion of Iraq, the primary purpose of which was to plunder the oil fields for imperialist gain.
No we didn't. The neo-cons may have, but not us.

That is, we never hear them complain of the "upwards" redistribution of wealth, which is what imperialism is all about.
Did you not bother to read any of my post?

Libertarians would have no problem with that. In fact, they wish to privatize everything under the sun, under the guise of "efficiency"
and/or "freedom."

What sort of "freedom" is that?
If that's your understanding of libertarianism, I'd bow out of this debate while you still have credibility.

Lest we forget that the so-called "free market" brings unsafe products designed to break,
There's a really big demand for unsafe products designed to break.

environmental pollution,
On the day of the revolution, will all cars and power stations suddenly stop producing CO2?

prostitution, pornography, dope,
It would seem that there's a conservative in your closet screaming to be let out.

and even organized crime are all part of this over-bearing, over-rated "private sector."
Criminals are only who the government say they are.

On the other hand, the "public sector" employs the nation's finest: our police,
:laugh: x 1,000,000

Too late.

--------


A better question would be, how would a Libertarian feel if corporations hired private militaries to be imperialistic?
Corporations are government priveleged entities. They probably wouldn't be allowed to exist, least of all invade another country.

It's not a problem anyone is likely to worry about in any case. The war in Iraq, for instance, has cost over $700000000000 so far. I can't see Haliburton invading Iraq if they had to foot this bill themselves.

[Demogorgon]

You meant the features of capitalism you find in the socialist straw man that no one actually supports.

You're as bad as he is.
Find me someone in the mainstream that doesn't think the definition of capitalism involves property, wage labour, stock exchanges, private business and so on.

[Klaatu]

"If that's your understanding of libertarianism, I'd bow out of this debate while you still have credibility."

My credibility? Sir, I was into Libertarianism all the way back in the 1970s, long before it became mainstream. And yes, that is my understanding of it. Truth is, there are several variations of it which have evolved.

I ultimately abandoned this discordant philosophy, because I did not agree with the idea that uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism (a stronghold of Libertarianism) ought to be allowed to dominate as an economic system. Capitalism, by it's core nature, is a gratuitous exploitation of the working class, as well as a careless trashing of the environment. (Yes capitalists do that, because it is much cheaper to dump than it is to
clean up)

Have you ever read any of Charles Dickens' novels? His stories present a snapshot of what early industrial laissez-faire capitalist-dominated England was like. Hint: It was not good. What do you think inspired him to write these powerful stories? (What do you think inspired Marx,
for that matter?)



"As Karl Marx said, Dickens, and the other novelists of Victorian England, "...issued to the world more political and social truths than have been uttered by all the professional politicians, publicists and moralists put together...".[58]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickens#Social_commentary


These stories are great literature, but they also suggest what it could be like under a present-day, purely-Libertarian capitalistic society. The poverty and exploitation conditions depicted in Dickens' tales may again materialize under a modern electronically-monitored populace of a present-day feudal system. Yes, that is exactly what would happen. The strong would dominate the weak. And feverishly control them.

So much for "freedom."



"There's a really big demand for unsafe products designed to break."

Like it or not, that quality is inherent in almost every product on the shelves these days.



"It would seem that there's a conservative in your closet screaming to be let out."


People can use those things all they wish, as far as I would care. I'm just saying that these are capitalist-created vices. (they're not virtues!) For example, the state does not churn out porn, dope, nefarious gadgets, bogus religious claims and fabrications, and miracle cures. But free enterprise does. (Yes, religion is a form of free enterprise)



"Criminals are only who the government say they are."


So you're OK with some low-life stealing your loot? So who will catch the thief? Would you not rather pay a professional police detective to track down your stolen property, or would you just go gunning for the creep yourself, missing days of work more than the stolen booty is worth?

Come to think of it, what do you have against police, firefighters, social workers, and teachers? Is there a need to be facetious here?
Then I don't get the joke.

[gorillafuck]

Tungsten, if you're flat out opposed to taxes, how can you justify the Afghanistan war which is done by a military, since militaries are funded by taxes (for now let's ignore the fact that the Afghanistan war costs a shitload of money)?

[Havet]

People can use those things all they wish, as far as I would care. I'm just saying that these are capitalist-created vices. (they're not virtues!)

Ludicrous. For example, people were smoking pot long before any signs of the actual existing capitalist system.


For example, the state does not churn out porn, dope, nefarious gadgets, bogus religious claims and fabrications, and miracle cures. But free enterprise does. (Yes, religion is a form of free enterprise)


You are conflating Capitalism and Free enterprise. They are different (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-free-t122671/index.html?t=122671).

[Green Dragon]

Capitalism, by it's core nature, is a gratuitous exploitation of the working class,

So why isn't socialism? Because it says so?



as well as a careless trashing of the environment. (Yes capitalists do that, because it is much cheaper to dump than it is to
clean up)


Is it LESS expensive for socialism?



Have you ever read any of Charles Dickens' novels? His stories present a snapshot of what early industrial laissez-faire capitalist-dominated England was like. Hint: It was not good. What do you think inspired him to write these powerful stories? (What do you think inspired Marx,
for that matter?)


Dickens himself said that his stories were great exagerations of events at the time. They were not "snapshot" of early industrial England.




These stories are great literature, but they also suggest what it could be like under a present-day, purely-Libertarian capitalistic society. The poverty and exploitation conditions depicted in Dickens' tales may again materialize under a modern electronically-monitored populace of a present-day feudal system. Yes, that is exactly what would happen. The strong would dominate the weak. And feverishly control them.


Assuming any of this is true for capitalism, why is it false for socialism?





People can use those things all they wish, as far as I would care. I'm just saying that these are capitalist-created vices. (they're not virtues!) For example, the state does not churn out porn, dope, nefarious gadgets, bogus religious claims and fabrications, and miracle cures. But free enterprise does. (Yes, religion is a form of free enterprise)


What evidence do you possess which would demonstrate that such vices would NOT exist in a socialist system?




So you're OK with some low-life stealing your loot? So who will catch the thief? Would you not rather pay a professional police detective to track down your stolen property, or would you just go gunning for the creep yourself, missing days of work more than the stolen booty is worth?

Come to think of it, what do you have against police, firefighters, social workers, and teachers? Is there a need to be facetious here?
Then I don't get the joke.


The "policeman, fireman, schoolteacher are all examples of socialism" is quite tedious and ridiculous. Its one thing to say their should be publically financed firefighters. Its quite another to rail on about how capitalism exploits the working class.

[#FF0000]

So why isn't socialism? Because it says so?

No. Because socialism stands for working class control.


Is it LESS expensive for socialism?

No. It would be expensive but cost wouldn't be an issue, as profit isn't the issue.


Dickens himself said that his stories were great exagerations of events at the time. They were not "snapshot" of early industrial England.

Are you denying that life as a worker in Industrial England was all around pretty bad?


Assuming any of this is true for capitalism, why is it false for socialism?

Gee, I don't know. How about you explain how direct democratic control by all over the means of production could breed the same injustices as the capitalist system could.


The "policeman, fireman, schoolteacher are all examples of socialism" is quite tedious and ridiculous. Its one thing to say their should be publically financed firefighters. Its quite another to rail on about how capitalism exploits the working class.

Why?

Also can you explain exactly how you manage to miss the point like you do? It's pretty impressive.

[NewSocialist]

In my experience, many of these libertarians put on a populist anti-corporation front, suggesting that without the state "creating conditions for monopoly" no business would become big enough, thanks to the wonders of "market competition", to influence political policy, and thus, no imperialism. Plus they don't believe in taxes, so there would be no money to finance the military industrial complex.

:laugh:

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Loveschach;1606195]No. Because socialism stands for working class control.


And was the German Democratic Republic democratic?? Even "working class control" means nothing if the working class does not control in a certain way.



No. It would be expensive but cost wouldn't be an issue, as profit isn't the issue.

Ahhh! I see! Economic activity in the socialist community has created pollution which will cost it much resources to clean up. But since it does not care about profit, those costs don't matter. But since profit is a measurement of the benefit to the community of that economic activity, it would seem the socialist community has no way of measuring whether the cost of cleaning up the pollution is worth the benefit accrued to the community of economic activity in the first place.




Are you denying that life as a worker in Industrial England was all around pretty bad?


I am saying that life industrial England pretty bad. As was life in industrial France, USA, Germany, Sweden, Russia ad infinitum. Just like it is pretty bad in contemporary industrial Mexico, China, Honduras ad infinitum.
Life in any nascent industrial states is pretty tough. The question is, is it worth it.




Gee, I don't know. How about you explain how direct democratic control by all over the means of production could breed the same injustices as the capitalist system could.


Well, direct democratic control simply means that the majority of the workers control, not "all" the workers.

Then of course those workers have to make decisions on doing things. In order to avoid the "injustices" of the capitalist system, naturally their democratic decisions will have to avoid using any sort of capitalist computations or reasonings. So, for example, if cleaning up the pollution costs the socialist entity a fair sum, how does it rationalise that production in the first place, absent a pursuit of profit?



Why?


Because the police or fire department is not measured by its economic success.

[ComradeMan]

I'm confused---- do we mean libertarians, aka anarchists etc or liberals?

The wording is mixing me up.

I would explain imperialism as a natural result of capitalism.
The Spanish Empire, plundered just about all it could get its hands on.
The Belgian Empire, stole everything that wasn't nailed down.
The British Empire, to take one example, bought raw materials at a low price from the colonies, processed them in the industrial centres and paid the workers a low wage and then sold the finished products at profit back to the workers and the colonies. The British state guaranteed security in the name of powerful and wealthy British capitalists. In return the colonies reaped some form of material development, usually aimed at improving the production and guaranteeing the status quo. The same could be said of the Dutch Empire in the East. Of course there was little choice involved, a bit like a protection racket of sorts.
The American Empire aka globalisation is not much different but does it in a modern way.

[NewSocialist]

I'm confused---- do we mean libertarians, aka anarchists etc or liberals?

The wording is mixing me up.

The libertarianism they're referring to is the far right-wing libertarianism popular here in the United States. Its roots are in "classical liberalism", the bourgeois foundation of capitalism.

They favor limited government, free markets, private property, and so forth.

[Klaatu]

"Is it LESS expensive for socialism?"
No, but that's not the point.


"Dickens himself said that his stories were great exagerations of events at the time. They were not "snapshot" of early industrial England."

Why would Marx have given Dickens such accolades, if he thought his writings were an exaggeration? Was not Marx a contemporary of Dickens? Can we not give him credit for "BEING THERE AND HAVING EYES AND EARS?"

Dickens himself was a bit of an apologist. For example, in his novel "Oliver Twist," he changed the original character "The Jew," into "Fagin," after hearing complaints from a Jewish newspaper. No doubt he was criticized for his lambasting of the upper classes and capitalists, so he may have been somewhat of, shall we say, compromising, for his works? (Then, I'm no expert on Dickens.)

But I still believe that we can learn a lot from the past on the dangers of an unregulated, uncontrolled dominance of capitalism. 19th-century England provides us with a good example of how bad it can be (AGAIN!)



"What evidence do you possess which would demonstrate that such vices would NOT exist in a socialist system?"

Because socialists simply DO NOT provide them now. Socialists are good-hearted folks, who run churches, soup kitchens, free health clinics, "meals-on-wheels," and a host of charities.

Porn, dope, etc are ALWAYS "for profit" enterprises. Now, you prove ME wrong on this? Where are these "non-profit" dope dealers and prostitutes?


"I am saying that life industrial England pretty bad. As was life in industrial France, USA, Germany, Sweden, Russia ad infinitum. Just like it is pretty bad in contemporary industrial Mexico, China, Honduras ad infinitum. Life in any nascent industrial states is pretty tough. The question is, is it worth it."

Are western industrial powers heading in a downward sprial? I mean, the evidence is there now, is it not? This present recession is only the BEGINNING of the downfall of the high USA and European standard of living. ("A capitalist will sell the rope for which he will be hanged with")


"They favor limited government, free markets, private property, and so forth."

These "Libertarians" ought to be very careful what they wish for
● on Limited Government: who will keep an eye on criminals, terrorists, illegal aliens, etc?
● on Free markets: who will protect the consumer from dangerous products, con men, telemarketers, etc.
● on Private property: can I walk along the beach on private "beachfront property?" Can a property owner dump toxic waste on his property?
● on So-Forth: What is to stop bands of capitalists (aka organized crime rings) from exploiting the weak?
______


"Ludicrous. For example, people were smoking pot long before any signs of the actual existing capitalist system."

Yes, people were "using" pot for centuries, so yes, it is wrong of me to label it a "creation" of cappies.
But they do SELL IT, and that's called free entrprise. The State does NOT sell it. That is my point.

[Jazzratt]

FR: I don't really want to undermine your argument against the free-marketeers but I should perhaps point out that there is at least one state that sells drugs. The Swedish state owns the large majority of alcohol retail in the country and alcohol is a pretty harsh drug all things considered.

[Skooma Addict]

Because socialists simply DO NOT provide them now. Socialists are good-hearted folks, who run churches, soup kitchens, free health clinics, "meals-on-wheels," and a host of charities.


Not all Socialists are good-hearted folks. Also, you can be a charitable person while at the same time support a free market.


on Limited Government: who will keep an eye on criminals, terrorists, illegal aliens, etc?

A person who supports a limited government will say that government police and the army will keep an eye on these people.


on Free markets: who will protect the consumer from dangerous products, con men, telemarketers, etc.

There is nothing wrong with dangerous products. If you buy a very unsafe little sports car, then that is your choice.


● on Private property: can I walk along the beach on private "beachfront property?" Can a property owner dump toxic waste on his property?

In a free market, what you could do on other peoples property would be decided by the courts. A neighbor won't be able to sue your kid for swimming in their pool. No court will uphold that decision (Okay, maybe there would be some court somewhere in the world that would). As for toxic waste, you can dump it on your own property as long as it does not effect other peoples property.


on So-Forth: What is to stop bands of capitalists (aka organized crime rings) from exploiting the weak?

Police.

[Havet]

Yes, people were "using" pot for centuries, so yes, it is wrong of me to label it a "creation" of cappies.
But they do SELL IT, and that's called free entrprise. The State does NOT sell it. That is my point.

So now its okay for a group of people to tell others what they can't do to their bodies and NOT OKAY for a group of people to trade the cannabis they grow for something else?

[eyedrop]

FR: I don't really want to undermine your argument against the free-marketeers but I should perhaps point out that there is at least one state that sells drugs. The Swedish state owns the large majority of alcohol retail in the country and alcohol is a pretty harsh drug all things considered.Sorry to be nitpicking but if I remember right there is a state monopoly on retail sale of alcoholic beverage above 2.5%.

It's the same here in Norway, just that the limit that convience stores are allowed to sell at is 5-6%.

[Jazzratt]

Sorry to be nitpicking but if I remember right there is a state monopoly on retail sale of alcoholic beverage above 2.5%.

It's the same here in Norway, just that the limit that convience stores are allowed to sell at is 5-6%.

Fair enough, but I am correct in assuming that the state does in fact sell alcohol, right? If so my point still stands. Also I'm fairly sure some state arms in various companies are repsonsible for distributing things like methadone to recovering addicts - although describing that as "selling drugs" is pushing the point rather a lot.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This debate is going nowhere fast; so far it's just between back and forth over what the definition of capitalism should be. Libertarians are not materialists so they will continue to argue from a standpoint that circumnavigates historical constants like "a difference in wealth leads to issues over power."

[Conquer or Die]

I'm not even going to ask what bizzare line of reasoning bought you to that conclusion.

You view imperialism as a natural darwinian occurrence of controlling resources for personal gain. I view communism as the logical extension of supremacy for the planet. The argument that wealth redistribution is immoral is overturned by the argument that imperialism is a natural occurrence. You cannot tell me that taking from the fat is wrong but imperialism is justified. It's an absurd set of values and standards that put you in line with fascist and racist reasoning.

[Drace]

And was the German Democratic Republic democratic?? Even "working class control" means nothing if the working class does not control in a certain way.


Did anyone here advocate the GDR's system?



Ahhh! I see! Economic activity in the socialist community has created pollution which will cost it much resources to clean up. But since it does not care about profit, those costs don't matter. But since profit is a measurement of the benefit to the community of that economic activity, it would seem the socialist community has no way of measuring whether the cost of cleaning up the pollution is worth the benefit accrued to the community of economic activity in the first place.


Profit as a measurement of the benefit of the community? Haha, that must of came straight out your ass, no wait worse...your brain.

What relevance does profit have to the benefit of society? Profit is the money one earns through the end of the trade. If profit is made, rather it shows that exploitation has taken place.

If I hire you as a worker for $20 an hour. And you make me widgets that I sell for $30 an hour, and say you make one an hour...then by the end of the 5 hour shift, I paid you $100 and received back $150.

Where does the benefit of the community come into here?

I suppose you meant that since profit is not taken account of, then how will you know whether the costs of cleaning it up is cost effective?

A dumb argument it would be both ways.

Cleaning it up instead of dumping it is more of an ethical issue. It really has little ties with economics. Since dumping it is of very little cost to capitalists, they choose that option instead, but the dumb goes toward damaging the environment.
It is societies decision whether it values a healthy environment. They have the choice of whether a certain sum of money is worth the clean environment.

I don't see how profit has anything to do with this at all.







Well, direct democratic control simply means that the majority of the workers control, not "all" the workers.

Then of course those workers have to make decisions on doing things. In order to avoid the "injustices" of the capitalist system, naturally their democratic decisions will have to avoid using any sort of capitalist computations or reasonings. So, for example, if cleaning up the pollution costs the socialist entity a fair sum, how does it rationalise that production in the first place, absent a pursuit of profit?


You write 50 words but they have nothing to do with each other. I don't understand your logic.

Explain wtf "capitalist computations or reasoning" is suppose to mean.

Also, wtf does the cost of cleaning up pollution have to do with rationalizing the production(of what?) .
And what does profit have to do with anything here.

Do you perhaps mean that because of the use of money we can measure the production output and therefore can know whether the cost of cleaning the pollution created from thus production does not exceed the profit itself?

Well if so, assigning the cost of products can vary from $0 ad infinitum. So the cost of something really isn't used to measure its value.


Say a factory produces $500 worth of goods and produces x amount of pollution that costs $400 to clean up.
In this case it would be important to notice the profit made because if it cost $600 rather than $400 to clean up, it would not be cost effective.
So profit in a sense matter. Socialist economics would not be too different though. Instead of the bourgeoisie earning the "profit"(by which I mean the leftover amount left), it would be the workers.

But what you mentioned is the "pursuit of profit". Wtf does the incentive to get profit have to do with measuring the surplus.



[/QUOTE]

[Klaatu]

"FR: I don't really want to undermine your argument against the free-marketeers but I should perhaps point out that there is at least one state that sells drugs. The Swedish state owns the large majority of alcohol retail in the country and alcohol is a pretty harsh drug all things considered."

Here in the U.S., the 21st Amendment to the Constitution (repealing Prohibition) grants states' rights to regulate alcohol. In my state, the state sells distilled spirits to retailers, and controls the price.
You are correct, the state does "sell drugs" in this case only, but in an effort to control it.


"on So-Forth: What is to stop bands of capitalists (aka organized crime rings) from exploiting the weak?
Police."

I've argued with Libertarians who want to "privatize" the police force. Good luck with that. Think police violate rights now? Think beatings and injustice are bad now? Wait till the private "robo-cops" show up at your door. Authorities who do not have to answer to public scrutiny. I'll keep my PUBLIC (socialist) police dept, thank you.


"So now its okay for a group of people to tell others what they can't do to their bodies and NOT OKAY for a group of people to trade the cannabis they grow for something else?"

I never said that I would try to control your intake of funny-formula. I merely stated that these are vices.


"This debate is going nowhere fast; so far it's just between back and forth over what the definition of capitalism should be."

I agree.
So can anyone then acknowledge my Charles Dickens argument, that our lifestyles are headed for the trashcan, under the present seige of the western capitalist power structure? That is, conditions not unlike 19th-century England might, someday return? Should I start a new thread on this? Comments? All I got so far was an opinion that Dickens was an exaggerator.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Libertarians love imperialism. Their explanation is that it's perfectly good and just that international capital freely enter into all economies. Furthermore, they don't find this at all problematic because they claim that everyone has an opportunity to compete and participate freely in the market. And they also like drawing an imaginary line between economic power and political power. So it doesn't matter in the least to them that a few countries control 90% of the world's capital. If pressed, they'd probably say that those poor coumtries just don't have enough sweatshops. :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Fair enough, but I am correct in assuming that the state does in fact sell alcohol, right? If so my point still stands. Also I'm fairly sure some state arms in various companies are repsonsible for distributing things like methadone to recovering addicts - although describing that as "selling drugs" is pushing the point rather a lot.
Quite a lot of States sell alcohol actually. Some of the US states sell it too come to think of it.

Also Switzerland sells heroin to addicts for whom methadone isn't working to stop them from going to drug dealers, to take another example.

[RGacky3]

There is nothing wrong with dangerous products. If you buy a very unsafe little sports car, then that is your choice.


Because we all know companies are always so honest about how safe their are, take the tabacco industry for example.

[IcarusAngel]

I think that the police are more often than not on the side of property. It's true that they do protect workers from violence committed by other workers a lot, and that's a good thing, but we need to be asking what is the root cause of that kind of violence. Why isn't there harsher penalties for economic crimes?

But I see what point FormerReaganite is making. So much of the stuff we think of as good is inherently PUBLIC, and not PRIVATE. And drugs etc. truly become a vice in a capitalistic system much of the time, as much as they are in the novel 'Brave New World' etc. In fact there are many similarities between why people use drugs in that novel and why they use them in our society. He left out 'science' though. Over 60% of scientists in certain fields (like astronomy) work for govt.

Furthermore, even within capitalism, many inventions come from individual inventers and workers under oppressive contracts that forces them to turn over their invention. This prevents many people from starting their own companies. I believe Steve Jobs and Wozniak only could proceed because the company Wozniak worked for had no interest in his 'invention,' otherwise he would have had to turn it over to the company.

So what do the capitalisms themselves do, besides nothing? They move money around in circles, and they destroy large insitutions while giving themselves golden parachutes to save their own asses.

Why are capitalists needed? Is their authority justified? I think it is clear that they are not needed and should have no authority.

[IcarusAngel]

. Some of the US states sell it too come to think of it.

Yep. In my state, the STATE RUN LIQUOR STORE is the only place to buy drinks that have a certain percentage of alcohol.

So if I wanted some kahlua or Vodka or something, I have to go to a STATE RUN STORE to buy it.

What's interesting is that the state says alcohol is so bad but is the only place to sell it. I believe you can also go to private clubs to get it 'for members' but it's weird and I've never really had an interest in 'clubbin' anyway.

[Havet]

I never said that I would try to control your intake of funny-formula. I merely stated that these are vices.


Should vices be legislated?

[Skooma Addict]

Because we all know companies are always so honest about how safe their are, take the tabacco industry for example.

Your joking right? Starting in elementary school we are exposed to endless rants about how evil the tobacco companies are and how people who smoke are failures.


Hopefully you aren't one of these guys....

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154267

[greymatter]

Imperialism is one of many means by which certain people acquire wealth. Acquisition of wealth is something we are driven to do in order to survive. Some people produce wealth, while others find ingenious ways of stealing it. Imperialism in that sense is a kind of organized theft of land, resources and labour. Think about that next time you're ripping off wal-mart (you know who you are).

If you can justify stealing from wal-mart (and I know you can), you can also justify imperialism. India was ruled by priests and feudal landholders prior to colonization. Surely you guys are happy that the folks in India now democratically elect communists into a british-style parliament. In exchange for getting ripped off for resources, the indians got shitloads of technology. Course, that's India, not Latin America.

Blaming imperialism on any particular ism (capitalism, stalinism, cubism etc...) is a ridiculous mistake, and kind of tribal in itself. :lol:

[Tungsten]

Because socialists simply DO NOT provide them now. Socialists are good-hearted folks, who run churches, soup kitchens, free health clinics, "meals-on-wheels," and a host of charities.
Is this an example of Poe's Law in action?

(Yes, religion is a form of free enterprise)
I thought that churches and religion were products of "free enterprise" so what are socialists doing running them? Or are you only referring to bogus religions? In that case, where are the genuine religions? Because the evidence to prove any religious claim is notable only by its absence. Just for the record, the people running the "free" health clinics are getting paid through taxation, so they're not there out of kindness.

These "Libertarians" ought to be very careful what they wish for
If your claims (that you used to be a libertarian) were genuine, you'd know the answer to all of these. It's not like these questions aren't pushed at us on a daily basis. If anything, it's more evidence that you're telling lies.

Authorities who do not have to answer to public scrutiny. I'll keep my PUBLIC (socialist) police dept, thank you.
I'll buy your argument when Bush is prosecuted for war crimes.

The forum screwed up somewhere along the line (It kept saying that I was already logged in when I wasn't) and I can't be bothered to re-post the rest of the response.

[RGacky3]

Your joking right? Starting in elementary school we are exposed to endless rants about how evil the tobacco companies are and how people who smoke are failures.


I have nothing against smokers, I think if you smoke thats your desicion and has nothing to do with me, however its documented that tobacco companies manipulated research to try and show that tobacco does'nt cause cancer, and that they lied, deliberately, as did many many other companies.

[Jazzratt]

Hopefully you aren't one of these guys....

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154267

Yes he's a strawman from a cartoon with a rapidly plummeting quality. Of course. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

I have nothing against smokers, I think if you smoke thats your desicion and has nothing to do with me, however its documented that tobacco companies manipulated research to try and show that tobacco does'nt cause cancer, and that they lied, deliberately, as did many many other companies.

It turns out tobacco smoking is good for society. Smokers die fast and easly from lung cancer and never have to go on medicare.

They are a moneymaker for insurance companies. :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

It turns out tobacco smoking is good for society. Smokers die fast and easly from lung cancer and never have to go on medicare.

They are a moneymaker for insurance companies.

I hope your kidding.

[greymatter]

I hope your kidding.
Do you believe in free will?

[RGacky3]

Do you believe in free will?

In what sense? And what does that have to do with what I was talking about?

[Bud Struggle]

I hope your kidding.

No, that's the way it goes. I can find you the stats.

[greymatter]

What I mean Gack is that I agree with this guy:


It turns out tobacco smoking is good for society. Smokers die fast and easly from lung cancer and never have to go on medicare.

Not only that, but cigarettes also sterilize their asses so they can't breed.

As far as denying that cigarettes are carcinogenic, that's just as bad as ford implying that I'll get laid if I buy their car. Caveat emptor, baby.

If I eat a bunch of carcinogenic pesticide saturated food and it makes me sick but not the guy with the gene that makes him pesticide-resistant, well damn. What's unfair about that?

[Skooma Addict]

I have nothing against smokers, I think if you smoke thats your desicion and has nothing to do with me, however its documented that tobacco companies manipulated research to try and show that tobacco does'nt cause cancer, and that they lied, deliberately, as did many many other companies.

Of coarse, the anti-smoking control freak zombies made false claims themselves. But yes, some companies did manipulate data, and that was wrong. But these days, I don't think there are many people who are stupid enough to believe that smoking isn't bad for you. Smoking companies also lobbied to ban advertising for smoking companies. So they have done a lot of bad things.


Yes he's a strawman from a cartoon with a rapidly plummeting quality. Of course. :rolleyes:


The entire network is rapidly plummeting.

[Klaatu]

"If your claims (that you used to be a libertarian) were genuine, you'd know the answer to all of these. It's not like these questions aren't pushed at us on a daily basis. If anything, it's more evidence that you're telling lies."

What sort of "lies" am I telling? That I oppose capitalism? That I think Libertarianism is a fantasy that cannot
ever possibly work in the real world?


"I'll buy your argument when Bush is prosecuted for war crimes."

I am hoping for the day that happens. (We agree on something!)


"Should vices be legislated?"

They already are, and I personally had nothing to do with it.


"Of coarse, the anti-smoking control freak zombies made false claims themselves."

What sort of "false claims?"

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Imperialism is one of many means by which certain people acquire wealth. Acquisition of wealth is something we are driven to do in order to survive. Some people produce wealth, while others find ingenious ways of stealing it. Imperialism in that sense is a kind of organized theft of land, resources and labour. Think about that next time you're ripping off wal-mart (you know who you are).

If you can justify stealing from wal-mart (and I know you can), you can also justify imperialism. India was ruled by priests and feudal landholders prior to colonization. Surely you guys are happy that the folks in India now democratically elect communists into a british-style parliament. In exchange for getting ripped off for resources, the indians got shitloads of technology. Course, that's India, not Latin America.

Blaming imperialism on any particular ism (capitalism, stalinism, cubism etc...) is a ridiculous mistake, and kind of tribal in itself. :lol:

lol
Jesus fucking Christ, where to even begin?
when we talk about imperialism, we're talking about the contemporary kind
we're not talking about territorial colonialism or 'stalinism'
ergo, when we talk about wealth, we're talking about financial capital, not land
please read Lenin

[Klaatu]

Ah, yes. Modern Imperialism. The U.S. invaded Iraq in order for Halliburton to easily get it's greasy hands on all of that cheap oil...
(Does anyone doubt this?)

Can I quote a lyric from the song "New Year's Day" (U2)
"So this is the Golden Age. And gold is the reason for the wars men wage..."

[Green Dragon]

If I hire you as a worker for $20 an hour. And you make me widgets that I sell for $30 an hour, and say you make one an hour...then by the end of the 5 hour shift, I paid you $100 and received back $150.

Where does the benefit of the community come into here?


The production of those widgets has cost the community five hours of work from a worker who is not making something else. It has also cost the community the raw material, energy ect. which too, is not being used somewhere else. Yet the value of the widget to the community, as measured by profit, is greater than its costs to the community.
That is how te community benefits.



I suppose you meant that since profit is not taken account of, then how will you know whether the costs of cleaning it up is cost effective?


It's more along the lines of "how do we know the pollution created to begin with, is worth it.'




They have the choice of whether a certain sum of money is worth the clean environment.


Yep. And there needs to be a way to determine; a set of knowledge which certain members of the community can use.





Explain wtf "capitalist computations or reasoning" is suppose to mean.


It means capitalists produces, or does not produce, based on its own criteria.
Socialism has to do the same.



Also, wtf does the cost of cleaning up pollution have to do with rationalizing the production(of what?) .


Because if it costs the community X amounts of dollars to clean it up, is the production worth those costs.




Do you perhaps mean that because of the use of money we can measure the production output and therefore can know whether the cost of cleaning the pollution created from thus production does not exceed the profit itself?

Well if so, assigning the cost of products can vary from $0 ad infinitum. So the cost of something really isn't used to measure its value.


Sure it is. Because those costs are somebody else's product.



Say a factory produces $500 worth of goods and produces x amount of pollution that costs $400 to clean up.


Ok



In this case it would be important to notice the profit made because if it cost $600 rather than $400 to clean up, it would not be cost effective.


In the example given, that is not $500 in profit, rather a value of $500. It could have cost $700 to get a value of $500.


Socialist economics would not be too different though. Instead of the bourgeoisie earning the "profit"(by which I mean the leftover amount left), it would be the workers.

Ok. Now you have endoresed capitalism, The workers would have to base their production decisions upon turning a profit.



But what you mentioned is the "pursuit of profit". Wtf does the incentive to get profit have to do with measuring the surplus.


Because profit is not some sort of act of Merlin. It doesn't automatically happen. In your above example, the workers in a socialist system would face the same problems as the capitalist: Is their production worth its costs?